Fighting H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act

[paul1]

BTW for anybody who hasn't yet voted on the Wall Street Journal poll, the current results are:

Against a ban: 6941 (85 percent)

For a ban: 1252 (15 percent)

Thanks for your great reporting, Jetset. But I've got a question. When I clicked the Wall Street Journal link a few days ago, it says that I voted "no". But I never even voted. What's up with that? Of course, I would have voted "no." But I didn't. I didn't get a chance. How does that page figure I voted "no" already? Is it psychic?

 

[jetset]

Damned if I know, Paul - it worked OK when I voted (btw the votes over there are over 8 200 now) Perhaps a techie glitch? Have you tried more recently?

Here's the link direct to the poll:

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

 

[spearmaster]

Thanks for your great reporting, Jetset. But I've got a question. When I clicked the Wall Street Journal link a few days ago, it says that I voted "no". But I never even voted. What's up with that? Of course, I would have voted "no." But I didn't. I didn't get a chance. How does that page figure I voted "no" already? Is it psychic?

On some webpages on some sites, if you don't directly vote but instead view the results, it records you as a "no vote" even though these numbers aren't shown.

 

[Peaceful1]

When we write to our Rep. should we also mention our strong opposition to any bill that would indirectly prohibit us to gamble online?

In the case of S. 2402 (concerning tightening legislation on prohibition of money laundering), we don't want to express opposition to the proposed bill altogether, but to the vagueness in some of the proposed amended text in the bill, as would relate to alternative payment methods used in online gambling. We don't want to give the supporters of prohibition of online gambling any reason to misconstrue our views.

(Example, think of an attorney in court, hypothetically.. one says, "I am opposed to S. 2402 as well.." The attorney replies..."So- you do not wish to see a stop to, or enforcement, of crimes relating to money laundering, and possibly financing terrorist activities??) Although they know better, you do not want to give them any reason to turn this whole thing around (implying corruption, especially after the incident with Abramoff), and I am certain that Sen. Kyl knows this as well when he co-sponsored this bill - a bill that at first glance definitely appears as, and for the most part of its intent, is ... a good and necessary thing. However, and this points back to Sen. Kyl's "sneaky tactics", he and his co-sponsors appear to be attaching their objectives (in the form of amended text) to a bill that is supposed to be designed for another primary purpose altogether.

Hopefully when this goes to mark-up, changes will be made to outline the provisions more concisely, so that it cannot be "loosely intepreted".

 

[Peaceful1]

the House Floor must be a "political battlefield" at times...

Yesterday (Mar. 14), Rep. Blumenauer proposed a bill that calls for replacing the current Committee on Standards of Official Conduct with an "Independent Ethics Commission" (H.R. 4948)...a House of Reps. "watchdog", if you will. I worked on this proposed bill last night, and saw that it called for a panel of 11members, 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent, all former House members that must have been out of their position for a minimum of 2 years. The Committee's proposed sole function is to monitor "ethical practices" of members of the House (procedures and the methods used by Members in their proposals for Bills) as well as many other outlined provisions. One of the purposes this has been proposed is to deter Members from withholding their views in fear of the opinions that their colleagues may develop as a result.

The reason I mention this in this thread, is because of all the animosity surrounding the Abramoff situation, among many other incidents surrounding many other issues brought to the House floor, I am sure. Since the issue of Internet gambling, and those opposed to it, has come to the forefront, the timing could not be better. It was vastly referred to 3 different House committees for review, so I am sure that the House Members "feel a need for a mediator". If enacted, lets hope this new "Ethics Commission" can see right through the "shady tactics" Members can, (and in my view - have tried to use), for their own selfish purposes in obtaining their goals.

 

[spearmaster]

Just wanted to say thanks to Cynthia for keeping such close track of what's going on - her posts are very detailed and thoughtful and I apologize for not thanking her for each and every one of those posts

 

[jetset]

Bad news from Reuters in Washington today (Wednesday) This looks like Leach's Bill 4411 referred to earlier. Fortunately it's still early days and there are more hurdles ahead for this Bill.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. House committee on Wednesday approved a bill aimed at stamping out the $12 billion Internet gambling industry by stopping businesses from accepting credit cards and other forms of payment.

The bill, cleared by voice vote in the House Financial Services Committee, would prohibit a gambling business from accepting credit cards, checks, wire transfers and electronic funds transfers in illegal gambling transactions.

Unlawful gambling, under the legislation, would include placing bets on online poker sites, for example, and any other online wager made or received in a place where such a bet is illegal under federal or state law.

By making it illegal to accept payments from people who live where federal or state law prohibits wagering, the legislation would impact offshore gambling Web sites used by many Americans to place bets.

The legislation carves out some exceptions, including wagering on horse races, governed under another U.S. law, and fantasy sports.

The bill now moves to the House floor for consideration.

Major professional sports organizations supported the legislation, including the National Football League and Major League Baseball, saying in a joint statement that sports betting "threatens the integrity of our respective sports."

But Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), the top Democrat on the House committee, opposed the bill. He said Congress should not seek to control how adults spend their money just because some lawmakers oppose gambling.

"Adults are entitled to do with their money what they want to do," he said.

A group called the Poker Players Alliance opposed the legislation as well.

"It is disingenuous to oppose Internet gambling and then write a bill that makes select forms of online gambling legal," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the group.

U.S. efforts to outlaw Internet gambling also have been opposed by the Caribbean state of Antigua, which has been trying to build up its Internet gambling industry as a way to make up for sharply declining tourism revenue.

 

[sdaddy]

Man, so many bills to keep track of now my head hurts. That's clearly the strategy in Congress this time: get as many bills going as possible in the hopes that something will finally become law.

What really bugs me is that the Financial Services Committee did not hold any hearings before marking up its bill today. How about listening to the voices that want to pursue a course of regulation and taxation instead? Did any of them even take time to watch well-researched 60 Minutes report that highlighted the pitfalls of such prohibition laws? I doubt it.

But Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, the top Democrat on the House committee, opposed the bill. He said Congress should not seek to control how adults spend their money just because some lawmakers oppose gambling.

"Adults are entitled to do with their money what they want to do," he said.

Rep. Frank has been right on this issue for a long time. I really wish there were more in Congress like him.

 

[sdaddy]

Just wanted to say thanks to Cynthia for keeping such close track of what's going on - her posts are very detailed and thoughtful and I apologize for not thanking her for each and every one of those posts

I would second that. I wonder if anyone has ever told her she would make a great Capitol Hill reporter?

 

[jetset]

I would second that. I wonder if anyone has ever told her she would make a great Capitol Hill reporter?

Yes, me too - you're doing a great job Cynthia; a great asset to the forum imo.

A few more details on the Bill reported above, which I have confirmed is indeed HR 4411 from Leach:

"H.R. 4411 will create strong tools to help federal and state governments enforce existing gambling prohibitions," Leach said in a statement. "Unlike in brick-and-mortar casinos in the United States where legal protections for bettors exist and where there are some compensatory social benefit in jobs and tax revenues, Internet gambling sites principally yield only liabilities to Americans."

The legislation does include exceptions for horse racing, which is governed under the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978, allowing for simulcasts across state lines as well as account wagering via phone lines or the Internet in states in which it is legal. Fantasy sports are also listed as an exception in this bill.

Unlawful gambling, under the legislation, would include placing bets on online poker sites and any other online wager made or received in a place where such bet is illegal under federal or state law.

The committee approval of this bill follows bipartisan legislation, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, introduced into the House in February by Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte and Democrat Rick Boucher, that would outlaw Internet gambling, but again allow for an exception for horse racing.

It would also set a maximum prison sentence of five years, up from two years, for a violation of this act. The legislation allows states to continue to regulate gambling within their borders.

If these Bills and their "exceptions" go through - and there's still a lot of road to travel - the US position vis-a-vis the WTO dispute will be made more difficult. The US defence has been that it objects to Internet gambling on moral grounds; that approach is difficult to sustain when you have hypocritical carve outs for certain forms of gambling.

 

[Chatmaster]

If this bill gets passed. The internet industry as a whole will be affected. I believe branching this out to other webmaster forums should be a good idea. If the US government decide to pass this bill, what will be next? Another thing is,... how many countries will view this as an oppertunity to legalize the web.

The stand we make should be bigger than just casino and gambling industry. This is the first "GIANT" step into getting control over the internet. Religion is a paradox and through the entire existance of man been the cause for wars and many deaths. In today's so called modern society it is still the case. The US history is filled with examples of why wars were faught based on the believes of individuals convinced everyone must follow their believes, damn sounds like my 1st mariage,... lol

I think it is time this is made clear to the monkeys in the top seats. Everyone has a democratic right to freedom else there is no freedom!

 

[Peaceful1]

Official Press Release

Here is the link to the official press release from the Financial Services Committee concerning the markup of H.R.4411:

Old / Expired Link


And just a note that I really do appreciate all of the thanks and complimentary remarks from my fellow forum members. I am glad to be a valuable resource, and make informative contributions to this forum. I guess I just happen to be at the right place at the right time

 

[jsp377]

The stand we make should be bigger than just casino and gambling industry. This is the first "GIANT" step into getting control over the internet. Religion is a paradox...

I agree up until the rant about war and religion. Part of the reason the Internet is so efficient and effective is that it focuses on reducing overhead, such as blocking certain IPs or, in the case of google v DoJ, monitoring and blocking web sites and searches. A bill was recently brought to the state legislature in NJ, though it has no prayer of passing (due to the fact that it's unenforceable and quite contrary to federal law), that would require posters on online forums to include verifiable names so that no one can flame anonymously.

Although we may not realize or intend it, we're part of a larger battle to keep the Internet free and effective. Monitoring web activity will destroy everything that the Internet has worked so hard to create. We're fighting the good fight on multiple sides.

And, of course...thanks, Cynthia.

 

[jetset]

888.COM SAYS U.S. BAN ATTEMPT WILL FAIL

But shares prices suffer from legislation blues

The CEO of major gambling group 888.com, John Anderson says he is confident that the current attempts by U.S. politicians to ban Internet gambling will fail.

Answering questions from the Reuters news agency, Anderson said that the Leach Bill, which seeks to curtail the use of financial instruments in online gambling and passed through the House Financial Services Committee earlier this week, was doomed to fail.

Nevertheless, jittery investors reacted to the news which caused a decline of some 5 percent in online gaming shares on Thursday after similar falls the day before.

Anderson told Reuters: "We feel confident it won't get through the next stages, and we'll be okay."

Ironically, the decline came as the group announced a 16 percent increase in annual profits and a slight reduction in its U.S. exposure.

Profit before tax rose to $50.2 million in 2005 from $43.1 million in 2004, and the company said current trading was in line with expectations.

Shares in sector leader PartyGaming were also affected, falling by 5.4 percent, while the second-biggest online gaming group, Sportingbet, fell 3.9 percent.

With about 8.5 million regular players in the U.S. and numerous routes for them to make payments, the bill would be difficult to enforce in the unlikely event it got through, analysts opined.

888 said it diversified away from the United States in 2005, reducing the share of revenues it gets from the U.S. to 55 percent from 58 percent in 2004.

"To rely on one country too much is not good, and without reducing volumes, I'd like to get the percentage we're taking from the U.S. down to 20 to 30 percent as soon as we can," said Anderson.

By making it illegal to accept payments from people who live where federal or state law prohibits wagering, the legislation would affect offshore gambling Web sites used by many Americans to place bets.

The bill now moves to the House floor for consideration.

888's Casino players increased 28 percent to 4.1 million in 2005, while poker players more than doubled to 1.5 million.

Group gaming revenues were up 52 percent in 2005 to $271 million.

 

[Peaceful1]

You're welcome, JSP...

I will be anxious to see the Committee Report from the markup session...(we work on A LOT of those ) Part of the reason is that it will list the numbers of how many voted "YEA" and "NAY" and the names of each... this will give us an edge on exactly who opposes this proposed Bill (good Members to write to), and Congress is not in session next week (Mar. 20-24, for St. Patrick's Day District Work Days) and I was told we may be working overtime this weekend (we usually get most of our work submitted by Congress when they are in their last days prior to "going out" of session), so I will be on the lookout for this. I know it is only a week, but perhaps some time to get in some email opinions to those in the Committee that opposed this, as it cannot reach the next step of going back to the House floor until they are in session again

 

[blackjackguide]

That is some interesting information from 888. It seems crazy to me that alot of the online casinos have not mentioned anything to affiliates at all. I guess not to scare anyone. It is still amazing to me that this regulation could occur when porn and other illegal activities are still going on! It's great to see everyone joining together to fight this thing!

 

[dominique]

888, who uses scrapersites to steal from it's own affiliates, informing them of things? Hardly.

I don't think this thing will pass this year either.

They keep looking for a version that will go through, but I doubt this one is it.

 

[Reef]

Just posting to express how much against this bill I am.

 

[Pirateofc21]

AARRRGGHHH...Ban this.

I meant this post of course. Hello everyone and greetings from the sea's. I have just returned from a long voyage to here and there and it looks like my timing is right on. All this talk about " To ban or Not to ban ". I say off the plank with the ban'rs. For those who remember, my situation of long past is one of the best arguements for legalization and Regulation. 'Nuff said. But I'll go on anyway. I read so much of the ill's of online gambling....OOHHH shivr me timbrs. The losses of money, destruction of family, so many other PRODUCTIVE things to do with ones time. Why is nobody talking about the possibilities for good when one wins? Yes it's rare to win alot but it doesn't have to be alot to do something positive. Ban online gambnling and you deny every online gambler the possibility to do good should one achieve the means to. Now I am not saying that one needs money to do good. Consider it a counterpoint to all this negative blah, blah, blah.

 

[Westland Bowl]

I meant this post of course. Hello everyone and greetings from the sea's. I have just returned from a long voyage to here and there and it looks like my timing is right on........

Welcome back, Pirateof21. I've read the archives some time back of your adventures on the rough seas. Recently there was/is another situation such as yours on another thread, though it is roughly half as much as what yours involved. And we got this attempts at banning online casinos. Glad you pulled into port! Ahoy!

 

[Pirateofc21]

Ahoy!

Thanks for the welcome. I just couldn't read anymore without saying something which reminds me.....what about Online Casinos within the boarders of the US? Have I been at sea too long? This would solve some of the issues about money leaving the US economy bound for off-shore destinations. AArrrgghh!

 

[Simmo!]

I meant this post of course. Hello everyone and greetings from the sea's. I have just returned from a long voyage to here and there and it looks like my timing is right on. All this talk about " To ban or Not to ban ". I say off the plank with the ban'rs. For those who remember, my situation of long past is one of the best arguements for legalization and Regulation. 'Nuff said. But I'll go on anyway. I read so much of the ill's of online gambling....OOHHH shivr me timbrs. The losses of money, destruction of family, so many other PRODUCTIVE things to do with ones time. Why is nobody talking about the possibilities for good when one wins? Yes it's rare to win alot but it doesn't have to be alot to do something positive. Ban online gambnling and you deny every online gambler the possibility to do good should one achieve the means to. Now I am not saying that one needs money to do good. Consider it a counterpoint to all this negative blah, blah, blah.

Ah the return of a legend. We didnt meet the first time round, but you're infamous me 'arty Welcome back to dry land ooh ar.

 

[Westland Bowl]

HR 4777 has picked up another 12 representatives last week from NC, KY, TN, TX, MI, FL, PA, CA. This brings the number of co-sponsors up to 130.

 

[sdaddy]

HR 4777 has picked up another 12 representatives last week from NC, KY, TN, TX, MI, FL, PA, CA. This brings the number of co-sponsors up to 130.

Thanks for the update.

You know I was wondering why my representative dismissively never answered my email I sent three weeks ago voicing my opposition to HR 4777. Now I see he's one of the newest cosponsors to this bad bill:

Rep Peterson, John E. [PA-5] - 3/14/2006

Guess there's my answer. Well I'll have something to say to that when I cast my vote for representative to Congress this November.

 

[Peaceful1]

sdaddy,

You're absolutely right...I've never really paid much mind to voting for State/local reps. before, but issues like this make me more attentive to a candidate's views. And I must say that I think it is highly unprofessional in your State rep's capacity to not even provide an acknowledgement of receiving your email/opinion, whether he is for or against the issue, a good Rep. should take their constituents' views into polite consideration.

To my knowledge and what we've received at work so far, the Financial Services Committee report has not been submitted yet. We've had reports from other committees, but nothing yet concerning H.R. 4411 or 4777..but will continue to keep an eye out